CHAPTER 16.

PDOBAPTISM. ITS ACCORDANCE WITH THE INSTITUTION OF CHRIST, AND THE NATURE OF
THE SIGN.

Divisions of this chapter,óI. Confirmation of the orthodox doctrine of
PÊdobaptism, sec. 1ñ9. II. Refutation of the arguments which the
Anabaptists urge against PÊdobaptism, sec. 10ñ30. III. Special
objections of Servetus refuted, sec. 31, 32.

Sections.

1. PÊdobaptism. The consideration of the question necessary and useful.
PÊdobaptism of divine origin.

2. This demonstrated from a consideration of the promises. These explain the
nature and validity of PÊdobaptism.

3. Promises annexed to the symbol of water cannot be better seen than in the
institution of circumcision.

4. The promise and thing figured in circumcision and baptism one and the same.
The only difference in the external ceremony.

5. Hence the baptism of the children of Christian parents as competent as the
circumcision of Jewish children. An objection founded on a stated day for
circumcision refuted.

6. An argument for PÊdobaptism founded on the covenant which God made
with Abraham. An objection disposed of. The grace of God not diminished by the
advent of Christ.

7. Argument founded on Christís invitation to children. Objection
answered.

8. Objection, that no infants were baptised by the apostles. Answer.
Objection, that pÊdobaptism is a novelty. Answer.

9. Twofold use and benefit of pÊdobaptism. In respect, 1. Of parents. 2.
Of children baptised.

10 Second part of the chapter, stating the arguments of Anabaptists. Alleged
dissimilitude between baptism and circumcision. First answer.

11. Second answer. The covenant in baptism and circumcision not different.

12. Third answer.

13. Infants, both Jewish and Christian, comprehended in the covenant.

14. Objection considered.

15. The Jews being comprehended in the covenant, no substantial difference
between baptism and circumcision.

16. Another argument of the Anabaptists considered.

17. Argument that children are not fit to understand baptism, and therefore
should not be baptised.

18. Answer continued.

19. Answer continued.

20. Answer continued.

21. Answer continued.

22. Argument, that baptism being appointed for the remission of sins, infants,
not having sinned, ought not to be baptised. Answer.

23. Argument against pÊdobaptism, founded on the practice of the
apostles. Answer.

24. Answer continued.

25. Argument founded on a saying of our Lord to Nicodemus. Answer.

26. Error of those who adjudge all who die unbaptised to eternal destruction.

27. Argument against pÊdobaptism, founded on the precept and example of
our Saviour, in requiring instruction to precede baptism. Answer.

28. Answer continued.

29. Answer continued.

30. Argument, that there is no stronger reason for giving baptism to children
than for giving them the Lordís Supper. Answer.

31. Last part of the chapter, refuting the arguments of Servetus.

32. Why Satan so violently assails pÊdobaptism.

1. BUT since, in this age, certain frenzied spirits have raised, and even now
continue to raise, great disturbance in the Church on account of
pÊdobaptism, I cannot avoid here, by way of appendix, adding something to
restrain their fury. Should any one think me more prolix than the subject is
worth, let him reflect that, in a matter of the greatest moment, so much is due
to the peace and purity of the Church, that we should not fastidiously object
to whatever may be conducive to both. I may add, that I will study so to
arrange this discussion, that it will tend, in no small degree, still farther
to illustrate the subject of baptism.60[3] The argument by which pÊdobaptism is assailed is, no
doubt, speciousóviz. that it is not founded on the institution of God,
but was introduced merely by human presumption and depraved curiosity, and
afterwards, by a foolish facility, rashly received in practice; whereas a
sacrament has not a thread to hang upon, if it rest not on the sure foundation
of the word of God. But what if, when the matter is properly attended to, it
should be found that a calumny is falsely and unjustly brought against the holy
ordinance of the Lord? First, then, let us inquire into its origin. Should it
appear to have been devised merely by human rashness, let us abandon it, and
regulate the true observance of baptism entirely by the will of the Lord; but
should it be proved to be by no means destitute of his sure authority, let us
beware of discarding the sacred institutions of God, and thereby insulting
their Author.

2. In the first place, then, it is a well-known doctrine, and one as to which
all the pious are agreed,óthat the right consideration of signs does not
lie merely in the outward ceremonies, but depends chiefly on the promise and
the spiritual mysteries, to typify which the ceremonies themselves are
appointed. He, therefore, who would thoroughly understand the effect of
baptismóits object and true characterómust not stop short at the
element and corporeal object. but look forward to the divine promises which are
therein offered to us, and rise to the internal secrets which are therein
represented. He who understands these has reached the solid truth, and, so to
speak, the whole substance of baptism, and will thence perceive the nature and
use of outward sprinkling. On the other hand, he who passes them by in
contempt, and keeps his thoughts entirely fixed on the visible ceremony, will
neither understand the force, nor the proper nature of baptism, nor comprehend
what is meant, or what end is gained by the use of water. This is confirmed by
passages of Scripture too numerous and too clear to make it necessary here to
discuss them more at length. It remains, therefore, to inquire into the nature
and efficacy of baptism, as evinced by the promises therein given. Scripture
shows, first, that it points to that cleansing from sin which we obtain
by the blood of Christ; and, secondly, to the mortification of the flesh
which consists in participation in his death, by which believers are
regenerated to newness of life, and thereby to the fellowship of Christ. To
these general heads may be referred all that the Scriptures teach concerning
baptism, with this addition, that it is also a symbol to testify our religion
to men.

3. Now, since prior to the institution of baptism, the people of God had
circumcision in its stead, let us see how far these two signs differ, and how
far they resemble each other. In this way it will appear what analogy there is
between them. When the Lord enjoins Abraham to observe circumcision (Gen.
17:10), he premises that he would be a God unto him and to his seed, adding,
that in himself was a perfect sufficiency of all things, and that Abraham might
reckon on his hand as a fountain of every blessing. These words include the
promise of eternal life, as our Saviour interprets when he employs it to prove
the immortality and resurrection of believers: ìGod,î says he,
ìis not the God of the dead, but of the livingî (Mt. 22:32).
Hence, too, Paul, when showing to the Ephesians how great the destruction was
from which the Lord had delivered them, seeing that they had not been admitted
to the covenant of circumcision, infers that at that time they were aliens from
the covenant of promise, without God, and without hope (Eph. 2:12), all these
being comprehended in the covenant. Now, the first access to God, the first
entrance to immortal life, is the remission of sins. Hence it follows, that
this corresponds to the promise of our cleansing in baptism. The Lord
afterwards covenants with Abraham, that he is to walk before him in sincerity
and innocence of heart: this applies to mortification or regeneration. And lest
any should doubt whether circumcision were the sign of mortification, Moses
explains more clearly elsewhere when he exhorts the people of Israel to
circumcise the foreskin of their heart, because the Lord had chosen them for
his own people, out of all the nations of the earth. As the Lord, in choosing
the posterity of Abraham for his people, commands them to be circumcised, so
Moses declares that they are to be circumcised in heart, thus explaining what
is typified by that carnal circumcision. Then, lest any one should attempt this
in his own strength, he shows that it is the work of divine grace. All this is
so often inculcated by the prophets, that there is no occasion here to collect
the passages which everywhere occur. We have, therefore, a spiritual promise
given to the fathers in circumcision, similar to that which is given to us in
baptism, since it figured to them both the forgiveness of sins and the
mortification of the flesh. Besides, as we have shown that Christ, in whom both
of these reside, is the foundation of baptism, so must he also be the
foundation of circumcision. For he is promised to Abraham, and in him all
nations are blessed. To seal this grace, the sign of circumcision is added.

4. There is now no difficulty in seeing wherein the two signs agree, and
wherein they differ. The promise, in which we have shown that the power of the
signs consists, is one in bothóviz. the promise of the paternal favour
of God, of forgiveness of sins, and eternal life. And the thing figured is one
and the sameóviz. regeneration. The foundation on which the completion
of these things depends is one in both. Wherefore, there is no difference in
the internal meaning, from which the whole power and peculiar nature of the
sacrament is to be estimated. The only difference which remains is in the
external ceremony, which is the least part of it, the chief part consisting in
the promise and the thing signified. Hence we may conclude, that everything
applicable to circumcision applies also to baptism, excepting always the
difference in the visible ceremony. To this analogy and comparison we are led
by that rule of the apostle, in which he enjoins us to bring every
interpretation of Scripture to the analogy of faith 7 (Rom. 12:3,
6). And certainly in this matter the truth may almost be felt. For just as
circumcision, which was a kind of badge to the Jews, assuring them that they
were adopted as the people and family of God, was their first entrance into the
Church, while they, in their turn, professed their allegiance to God, so now we
are initiated by baptism, so as to be enrolled among his people, and at the
same time swear unto his name. Hence it is incontrovertible, that baptism has
been substituted for circumcision, and performs the same office.

5. Now, if we are to investigate whether or not baptism is justly given to
infants, will we not say that the man trifles, or rather is delirious, who
would stop short at the element of water, and the external observance, and not
allow his mind to rise to the spiritual mystery? If reason is listened to, it
will undoubtedly appear that baptism is properly administered to infants as a
thing due to them. The Lord did not anciently bestow circumcision upon them
without making them partakers of all the things signified by circumcision. He
would have deluded his people with mere imposture, had he quieted them with
fallacious symbols: the very idea is shocking. He distinctly declares, that the
circumcision of the infant will be instead of a seal of the promise of the
covenant. But if the covenant remains firm and fixed, it is no less applicable
to the children of Christians in the present day, than to the children of the
Jews under the Old Testament. Now, if they are partakers of the thing
signified, how can they be denied the sign? If they obtain the reality, how can
they be refused the figure? The external sign is so united in the sacrament
with the word, that it cannot be separated from it: but if they can be
separated, to which of the two shall we attach the greater value? Surely, when
we see that the sign is subservient to the word, we shall say that it is
subordinate, and assign it the inferior place. Since, then, the word of baptism
is destined for infants, why should we deny them the sign, which is an
appendage of the word? This one reason, could no other be furnished, would be
amply sufficient to refute all gainsayers. The objection, that there was a
fixed day for circumcision, is a mere quibble. We admit that we are not now,
like the Jews, tied down to certain days; but when the Lord declares, that
though he prescribes no day, yet he is pleased that infants shall be formally
admitted to his covenant, what more do we ask?

6. Scripture gives us a still clearer knowledge of the truth. For it is most
evident that the covenant, which the Lord once made with Abraham, is not less
applicable to Christians now than it was anciently to the Jewish people, and
therefore that word has no less reference to Christians than to Jews. Unless,
indeed, we imagine that Christ, by his advent, diminished, or curtailed the
grace of the Fatheróan idea not free from execrable blasphemy.
Wherefore, both the children of the Jews, because, when made heirs of that
covenant, they were separated from the heathen, were called a holy seed, and
for the same reason the children of Christians, or those who have only one
believing parent, are called holy, and, by the testimony of the apostle, differ
from the impure seed of idolaters. Then, since the Lord, immediately after the
covenant was made with Abraham, ordered it to be sealed in infants by an
outward sacrament, how can it be said that Christians are not to attest it in
the present day, and seal it in their children? Let it not be objected, that
the only symbol by which the Lord ordered his covenant to be confirmed was that
of circumcision, which was long ago abrogated. It is easy to answer, that, in
accordance with the form of the old dispensation, he appointed circumcision to
confirm his covenant, but that it being abrogated, the same reason for
confirmation still continues, a reason which we have in common with the Jews.
Hence it is always necessary carefully to consider what is common to both, and
wherein they differed from us. The covenant is common, and the reason for
confirming it is common. The mode of confirming it is so far different, that
they had circumcision, instead of which we now have baptism. Otherwise, if the
testimony by which the Jews were assured of the salvation of their seed is
taken from us, the consequence will be, that, by the advent of Christ, the
grace of God, which was formerly given to the Jews, is more obscure and less
perfectly attested to us. If this cannot be said without extreme insult to
Christ, by whom the infinite goodness of the Father has been more brightly and
benignly than ever shed upon the earth, and declared to men, it must be
confessed that it cannot be more confined, and less clearly manifested, than
under the obscure shadows of the law.

7. Hence our Lord Jesus Christ, to give an example from which the world might
learn that he had come to enlarge rather than to limit the grace of the Father,
kindly takes the little children in his arms, and rebukes his disciples for
attempting to prevent them from, coming (Mt. 19:13), because they were keeping
those to whom the kingdom of heaven belonged away from him, through whom alone
there is access to heaven. But it will be asked, What resemblance is there
between baptism and our Saviour embracing little children? He is not said to
have baptised, but to have received, embraced, and blessed them; and,
therefore, if we would imitate his example, we must give infants the benefit of
our prayers, not baptise them. But let us attend to the act of our Saviour a
little more carefully than these men do. For we must not lightly overlook the
fact, that our Saviour, in ordering little children to be brought to him, adds
the reason, ì of such is the kingdom of heaven.î And he afterwards
testifies his good-will by act, when he embraces them, and with prayer and
benediction commends them to his Father. If it is right that children should be
brought to Christ, why should they not be admitted to baptism, the symbol of
our communion and fellowship with Christ? If the kingdom of heaven is theirs,
why should they be denied the sign by which access, as it were, is opened to
the Church, that being admitted into it they may be enrolled among the heirs of
the heavenly kingdom? How unjust were we to drive away those whom Christ
invites to himself, to spoil those whom he adorns with his gifts, to exclude
those whom he spontaneously admits. But if we insist on discussing the
difference between our Saviourís act and baptism, in how much higher
esteem shall we hold baptism (by which we testify that infants are included in
the divine covenant), than the taking up, embracing, laying hands on children,
and praying over them, acts by which Christ, when present, declares both that
they are his, and are sanctified by him. By the other cavils by which the
objectors endeavour to evade this passage, they only betray their ignorance:
they quibble that, because our Saviour says ìSuffer little children to
come,î they must have been several years old, and fit to come. But they
are called by the Evangelists bpevfh kai; paidiav, terms which denote infants
still at their mothersí breasts. The term ìcomeî is used
simply for ìapproach.î See the quibbles to which men are obliged
to have recourse when they have hardened themselves against the truth! There is
nothing more solid in their allegation, that the kingdom of heaven is not
assigned to children, but to those like children, since the expression is,
ìof such,î not ìof themselves.î If this is admitted,
what will be the reason which our Saviour employs to show that they are not
strangers to him from nonage? When he orders that little children shall be
allowed to come to him, nothing is plainer than that mere infancy is meant.
Lest this should seem absurd, he adds, ìOf such is the kingdom of
heaven.î But if infants must necessarily be comprehended, the expression,
ìof such,î clearly shows that infants themselves, and those like
them, are intended.

8. Every one must now see that pÊdobaptism, which receives such strong
support from Scripture, is by no means of human invention. Nor is there
anything plausible in the objection, that we nowhere read of even one infant
having been baptised by the hands of the apostles. For although this is not
expressly narrated by the Evangelists, yet as they are not expressly excluded
when mention is made of any baptised family (Acts 16:15, 32), what man of sense
will argue from this that they were not baptised? If such kinds of argument
were good, it would be necessary, in like manner, to interdict women from the
Lordís Supper, since we do not read that they were ever admitted to it
in the days of the apostles. But here we are contented with the rule of faith.
For when we reflect on the nature of the ordinance of the Lordís Supper,
we easily judge who the persons are to whom the use of it is to be
communicated. The same we observe in the case of baptism. For, attending to the
end for which it was instituted, we clearly perceive that it is not less
applicable to children than to those of more advanced years, and that,
therefore, they cannot be deprived of it without manifest fraud to the will of
its divine Author. The assertion which they disseminate among the common
people, that a long series of years elapsed after the resurrection of Christ,
during which pÊdobaptism was unknown, is a shameful falsehood, since
there is no writer, however ancient, who does not trace its origin to the days
of the apostles.

9. It remains briefly to indicate what benefit redounds from the observance,
both to believers who bring their children to the church to be baptised, and to
the infants themselves, to whom the sacred water is applied, that no one may
despise the ordinance as useless or superfluous: though any one who would think
of ridiculing baptism under this pretence, would also ridicule the divine
ordinance of circumcision: for what can they adduce to impugn the one, that may
not be retorted against the other? Thus the Lord punishes the arrogance of
those who forthwith condemn whatever their carnal sense cannot comprehend. But
God furnishes us with other weapons to repress their stupidity. His holy
institution, from which we feel that our faith derives admirable consolation,
deserves not to be called superfluous. For the divine symbol communicated to
the child, as with the impress of a seal, confirms the promise given to the
godly parent, and declares that the Lord will be a God not to him only, but to
his seed; not merely visiting him with his grace and goodness, but his
posterity also to the thousandth generation. When the infinite goodness of God
is thus displayed, it, in the first place, furnishes most ample materials for
proclaiming his glory, and fills pious breasts with no ordinary joy, urging
them more strongly to love their affectionate Parent, when they see that, on
their account, he extends his care to their posterity. I am not moved by the
objection, that the promise ought to be sufficient to confirm the salvation of
our children. It has seemed otherwise to God, who, seeing our weakness, has
herein been pleased to condescend to it. Let those, then, who embrace the
promise of mercy to their children, consider it as their duty to offer them to
the Church, to be sealed with the symbol of mercy, and animate themselves to
surer confidence, on seeing with the bodily eye the covenant of the Lord
engraven on the bodies of their children. On the other hand, children derive
some benefit from their baptism, when, being ingrafted into the body of the
Church, they are made an object of greater interest to the other members. Then
when they have grown up, they are thereby strongly urged to an earnest desire
of serving God, who has received them as sons by the formal symbol of adoption,
before, from nonage, they were able to recognise him as their Father. In fine,
we ought to stand greatly in awe of the denunciation, that God will take
vengeance on every one who despises to impress the symbol of the covenant on
his child (Gen. 17:15), such contempt being a rejection, and, as it were,
abjuration of the offered grace.

10. Let us now discuss the arguments by which some furious madmen cease not to
assail this holy ordinance of God. And, first, feeling themselves pressed
beyond measure by the resemblance between baptism and circumcision, they
contend that there is a wide difference between the two signs, that the one has
nothing in common with the other. They maintain that the things meant are
different, that the covenant is altogether different, and that the persons
included under the name of children are different. When they first proceed to
the proof, they pretend that circumcision was a figure of mortification, not of
baptism. This we willingly concede to them, for it admirably supports our view,
in support of which the only proof we use is, that baptism and circumcision are
signs of mortification. Hence we conclude that the one was substituted for the
other, baptism representing to us the very thing which circumcision signified
to the Jews. In asserting a difference of covenant, with what barbarian
audacity do they corrupt and destroy Scripture? and that not in one passage
only, but so as not to leave any passage safe and entire. The Jews they depict
as so carnal as to resemble brutes more than men, representing the covenant
which was made with them as reaching no farther than a temporary life, and the
promises which were given to them as dwindling down into present and corporeal
blessings. If this dogma is received, what remains but that the Jewish nation
was overloaded for a time with divine kindness (just as swine are gorged in
their sty), that they might at last perish eternally? Whenever we quote
circumcision and the promises annexed to it, they answer, that circumcision was
a literal sign, and that its promises were carnal.

11. Certainly, if circumcision was a literal sign, the same view must be taken
of baptism, since, in the second chapter to the Colossians, the apostle makes
the one to be not a whit more spiritual than the other. For he says that in
Christ we ìare circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in
putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of
Christ.î In explanation of his sentiment he immediately adds, that we are
ìburied with him in baptism.î What do these words mean, but just
that the truth and completion of baptism is the truth and completion of
circumcision, since they represent one thing? For his object is to show that
baptism is the same thing to Christians that circumcision formerly was to the
Jews. Now, since we have already clearly shown that the promises of both signs,
and the mysteries which are represented by them, agree, we shall not dwell on
the point longer at present. I would only remind believers to reflect, without
anything being said by me, whether that is to be regarded as an earthly and
literal sign, which has nothing heavenly or spiritual under it. But lest they
should blind the simple with their smoke, we shall, in passing, dispose of one
objection by which they cloak this most impudent falsehood. It is absolutely
certain that the original promises comprehending the covenant which God made
with the Israelites under the old dispensation were spiritual, and had
reference to eternal life, and were, of course, in like manner spiritually
received by the fathers, that they might thence entertain a sure hope of
immortality, and aspire to it with their whole soul. Meanwhile, we are far from
denying that he testified his kindness to them by carnal and earthly blessings;
though we hold that by these the hope of spiritual promises was confirmed. In
this manner, when he promised eternal blessedness to his servant Abraham, he,
in order to place a manifest indication of favour before his eye, added the
promise of possession of the land of Canaan. In the same way we should
understand all the terrestrial promises which were given to the Jewish nation,
the spiritual promise, as the head to which the others bore reference, always
holding the first place. Having handled this subject fully when treating of the
difference between the old and the new dispensations, I now only glance at it.

12. Under the appellation of children the difference they observe is
this, that the children of Abraham, under the old dispensation, were those who
derived their origin from his seed, but that the appellation is now given to
those who imitate his faith, and therefore that carnal infancy, which was
ingrafted into the fellowship of the covenant by circumcision, typified the
spiritual children of the new covenant, who are regenerated by the word of God
to immortal life. In these words we indeed discover a small spark of truth, but
these giddy spirits err grievously in this, that laying hold of whatever comes
first to their hand, when they ought to proceed farther, and compare many
things together, they obstinately fasten upon one single word. Hence it cannot
but happen that they are every now and then deluded, because they do not exert
themselves to obtain a full knowledge of any subject. We certainly admit that
the carnal seed of Abraham for a time held the place of the spiritual seed,
which is ingrafted into him by faith (Gal. 4:28; Rom. 4:12). For we are called
his sons, though we have no natural relationship with him. But if they mean, as
they not obscurely show, that the spiritual promise was never made to the
carnal seed of Abraham, they are greatly mistaken. We must, therefore, take a
better aim, one to which we are directed by the infallible guidance of
Scripture. The Lord therefore promises to Abraham that he shall have a seed in
whom all the nations of the earth will be blessed, and at the same time assures
him that he will be a God both to him and his seed. All who in faith receive
Christ as the author of the blessing are the heirs of this promise, and
accordingly are called the children of Abraham.

13. Although, after the resurrection of Christ, the boundaries of the kingdom
began to be extended far and wide into all nations indiscriminately, so that,
according to the declaration of Christ, believers were collected from all
quarters to sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven
(Mt. 8:11), still, for many ages before, the Jews had enjoyed this great mercy.
And as he had selected them (while passing by all other nations) to be for a
time the depositaries of his favour, he designated them as his peculiar
purchased people (Exod. 19:5). In attestation of this kindness, he appointed
circumcision, by which symbol the Jews were taught that God watched over their
safety, and they were thereby raised to the hope of eternal life. For what can
ever be wanting to him whom God has once taken under his protection? Wherefore
the apostle, to prove that the Gentiles, as well as the Jews, were the children
of Abraham, speaks in this way: ìFaith was reckoned to Abraham for
righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in
uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the
sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet
being uncircumcised; that he might be the father of all them that believe,
though they be not circumcised: that righteousness might be imputed to them
also: and the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision
only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which
he had yet being uncircumcisedî (Rom. 4:9ñ12). Do we not see that
both are made equal in dignity? For, to the time appointed by the divine
decree, he was the father of circumcision. But when, as the apostle elsewhere
writes (Eph. 2:14), the wall of partition which separated the Gentiles from the
Jews was broken down, to them, also, access was given to the kingdom of God,
and he became their father, and that without the sign of circumcision, its
place being supplied by baptism. In saying expressly that Abraham was not the
father of those who were of the circumcision only, his object was to repress
the superciliousness of some who, laying aside all regard to godliness, plumed
themselves on mere ceremonies. In like manner, we may, in the present day,
refute the vanity of those who, in baptism, seek nothing but water.

14. But in opposition to this is produced a passage from the Epistle to the
Romans, in which the apostle says, that those who are of the flesh are not the
children of Abraham, but that those only who are the children of promise are
considered as the seed (Rom. 9:7). For he seems to insinuate, that carnal
relationship to Abraham, which we think of some consequence, is nothing. But we
must attend carefully to the subject which the apostle is there treating. His
object being to show to the Jews that the goodness of God was not restricted to
the seed of Abraham, nay, that of itself it contributes nothing, produces, in
proof of the fact, the cases of Ishmael and Esau. These being rejected, just as
if they had been strangers, although, according to the flesh, they were the
genuine offspring of Abraham, the blessing resides in Isaac and Jacob. This
proves what he afterwards affirmsóviz. that salvation depends on the
mercy which God bestows on whomsoever he pleases, but that the Jews have no
ground to glory or plume themselves on the name of the covenant, unless they
keep the law of the covenant, that is, obey the word. On the other hand, after
casting down their vain confidence in their origin, because he was aware that
the covenant which had been made with the posterity of Abraham could not
properly prove fruitless, he declares, that due honour should still be paid to
carnal relationship to Abraham, in consequence of which, the Jews were the
primary and native heirs of the gospel, unless in so far as they were, for
their ingratitude, rejected as unworthy, and yet rejected so as not to leave
their nation utterly destitute of the heavenly blessing. For this reason,
though they were contumacious breakers of the covenant, he styles them holy
(such respect does he pay to the holy generation which God had honoured with
his sacred covenant), while we, in comparison of them, are termed posthumous,
or abortive children of Abraham, and that not by nature, but by adoption, just
as if a twig were broken from its own tree, and ingrafted on another stock.
Therefore, that they might not be defrauded of their privilege, it was
necessary that the gospel should first be preached to them. For they are, as it
were, the first-born in the family of God. The honour due, on this account,
must therefore be paid them, until they have rejected the offer, and, by their
ingratitude, caused it to be transferred to the Gentiles. Nor, however great
the contumacy with which they persist in warring against the gospel, are we
therefore to despise them. We must consider, that in respect of the promise,
the blessing of God still resides among them; and, as the apostle testifies,
will never entirely depart from them, seeing that ìthe gifts and calling
of God are without repentanceî (Rom. 11:29).

15. Such is the value of the promise given to the posterity of
Abraham,ósuch the balance in which it is to be weighed. Hence, though we
have no doubt that in distinguishing the children of God from bastards and
foreigners, that the election of God reigns freely, we, at the same time,
perceive that he was pleased specially to embrace the seed of Abraham with his
mercy, and, for the better attestation of it, to seal it by circumcision. The
case of the Christian Church is entirely of the same description; for as Paul
there declares that the Jews are sanctified by their parents, so he elsewhere
says that the children of Christians derive sanctification from their parents.
Hence it is inferred, that those who are chargeable with impurity are justly
separated from others. Now, who can have any doubt as to the falsehood of their
subsequent avermentóviz. that the infants who were formerly circumcised
only typified the spiritual infancy which is produced by the regeneration of
the word of God? When the apostle says, that ìJesus Christ was a
minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made
unto the fathersî (Rom. 15:8), he does not philosophise subtilely, as if
he had said, Since the covenant made with Abraham has respect unto his seed,
Christ, in order to perform and discharge the promise made by the Father, came
for the salvation of the Jewish nation. Do you see how he considers that, after
the resurrection of Christ, the promise is to be fulfilled to the seed of
Abraham, not allegorically, but literally, as the words express? To the same
effect is the declaration of Peter to the Jews: ìThe promise is unto you
and to your childrenî (Acts 2:39); and in the next chapter, he calls them
the children of the covenant, that is, heirs. Not widely different from
this is the other passage of the apostle, above quoted, in which he regards and
describes circumcision performed on infants as an attestation to the communion
which they have with Christ. And, indeed, if we listen to the absurdities of
those men, what will become of the promise by which the Lord, in the second
commandment of his law, engages to be gracious to the seed of his servants for
a thousand generations? Shall we here have recourse to allegory? This were the
merest quibble. Shall we say that it has been abrogated? In this way, we should
do away with the law which Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfil, inasmuch
as it turns to our everlasting good. Therefore, let it be without controversy,
that God is so good and liberal to his people, that he is pleased, as a mark of
his favour, to extend their privileges to the children born to them.

16. The distinctions which these men attempt to draw between baptism and
circumcision are not only ridiculous, and void of all semblance of reason, but
at variance with each other. For, when they affirm that baptism refers to the
first day of spiritual contest, and circumcision to the eighth day,
mortification being already accomplished, they immediately forget the
distinction, and change their song, representing circumcision as typifying the
mortification of the flesh, and baptism as a burial, which is given to none but
those who are already dead. What are these giddy contradictions but frenzied
dreams? According to the former view, baptism ought to precede circumcision;
according to the latter, it should come after it. It is not the first time we
have seen the minds of men wander to and fro when they substitute their dreams
for the infallible word of God. We hold, therefore, that their former
distinction is a mere imagination. Were we disposed to make an allegory of the
eighth day, theirs would not be the proper mode of it. It were much better with
the early Christians to refer the number eight to the resurrection, which took
place on the eighth day, and on which we know that newness of life depends, or
to the whole course of the present life, during which, mortification ought to
be in progress, only terminating when life itself terminates; although it would
seem that God intended to provide for the tenderness of infancy by deferring
circumcision to the eighth day, as the wound would have been more dangerous if
inflicted immediately after birth. How much more rational is the declaration of
Scripture, that we, when already dead, are buried by baptism (Rom. 6:4); since
it distinctly states, that we are buried into death that we may thoroughly die,
and thenceforth aim at that mortification? Equally ingenious is their cavil,
that women should not be baptised if baptism is to be made conformable to
circumcision. For if it is most certain that the sanctification of the seed of
Israel was attested by the sign of circumcision, it cannot be doubted that it
was appointed alike for the sanctification of males and females. But though the
right could only be performed on males, yet the females were, through them,
partners and associates in circumcision. Wherefore, disregarding all such
quibbling distinctions, let us fix on the very complete resemblance between
baptism and circumcision, as seen in the internal office, the promise, the use,
and the effect.

17. They seem to think they produce their strongest reason for denying baptism
to children, when they allege, that they are as yet unfit, from nonage, to
understand the mystery which is there sealedóviz. spiritual
regeneration, which is not applicable to earliest infancy. Hence they infer,
that children are only to be regarded as sons of Adam until they have attained
an age fit for the reception of the second birth. But all this is directly
opposed to the truth of God. For if they are to be accounted sons of Adam, they
are left in death, since, in Adam, we can do nothing but die. On the contrary,
Christ bids them be brought to him. Why so? Because he is life. Therefore, that
he may quicken them, he makes them partners with himself; whereas these men
would drive them away from Christ, and adjudge them to death. For if they
pretend that infants do not perish when they are accounted the sons of Adam,
the error is more than sufficiently confuted by the testimony of Scripture (1
Cor. 15:22). For seeing it declares that in Adam all die, it follows, that no
hope of life remains unless in Christ. Therefore, that we may become heirs of
life, we must communicate with him. Again, seeing it is elsewhere written that
we are all by nature the children of wrath (Eph. 2:3), and conceived in sin
(Ps. 51:5), of which condemnation is the inseparable attendant, we must part
with our own nature before we have any access to the kingdom of God. And what
can be clearer than the expression, ìFlesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of Godî? (1 Cor. 15:50.) Therefore, let everything that is our
own be abolished (this cannot be without regeneration), and then we shall
perceive this possession of the kingdom. In fine, if Christ speaks truly when
he declares that he is life, we must necessarily be ingrafted into him by whom
we are delivered from the bondage of death. But how, they ask, are infants
regenerated, when not possessing a knowledge of either good or evil? We answer,
that the work of God, though beyond the reach of our capacity, is not therefore
null. Moreover, infants who are to be saved (and that some are saved at this
age is certain) must, without question, be previously regenerated by the Lord.
For if they bring innate corruption with them from their motherís womb,
they must be purified before they can be admitted into the kingdom of God, into
which shall not enter anything that defileth (Rev. 21:27). If they are born
sinners, as David and Paul affirm, they must either remain unaccepted and hated
by God, or be justified. And why do we ask more, when the Judge himself
publicly declares, that ìexcept a man be born again, he cannot see the
kingdom of Godî? (John 3:3.) But to silence this class of objectors, God
gave, in the case of John the Baptist, whom he sanctified from his
motherís womb (Luke 1:15), a proof of what he might do in others. They
gain nothing by the quibble to which they here resortóviz. that this was
only once done, and therefore it does not forthwith follow that the Lord always
acts thus with infants. That is not the mode in which we reason. Our only
object is to show, that they unjustly and malignantly confine the power of God
within limits, within which it cannot be confined. As little weight is due to
another subterfuge. They allege that, by the usual phraseology of Scripture,
ìfrom the womb,î has the same meaning as ìfrom
childhood.î But it is easy to see that the angel had a different meaning
when he announced to Zacharias that the child not yet born would be filled with
the Holy Spirit. Instead of attempting to give a law to God, let us hold that
he sanctifies whom he pleases, in the way in which he sanctified John, seeing
that his power is not impaired.

18. And, indeed, Christ was sanctified from earliest infancy, that he might
sanctify his elect in himself at any age, without distinction. For as he, in
order to wipe away the guilt of disobedience which had been committed in our
flesh, assumed that very flesh, that in it he might, on our account, and in our
stead, perform a perfect obedience, so he was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
that, completely pervaded with his holiness in the flesh which he had assumed,
he might transfuse it into us. If in Christ we have a perfect pattern of all
the graces which God bestows on all his children, in this instance we have a
proof that the age of infancy is not incapable of receiving sanctification.
This, at least, we set down as incontrovertible, that none of the elect is
called away from the present life without being previously sanctified and
regenerated by the Spirit of God. 8 As to their objection that, in
Scripture, the Spirit acknowledges no sanctification save that from
incorruptible seed, that is, the word of God, they erroneously interpret
Peterís words, in which he comprehends only believers who had been
taught by the preaching of the gospel (1 Pet. 1:23). We confess, indeed, that
the word of the Lord is the only seed of spiritual regeneration; but we deny
the inference that, therefore, the power of God cannot regenerate infants. This
is as possible and easy for him, as it is wondrous and incomprehensible to us.
It were dangerous to deny that the Lord is able to furnish them with the
knowledge of himself in any way he pleases.

19. But faith, they say, cometh by hearing, the use of which
infants have not yet obtained, nor can they be fit to know God, being, as Moses
declares, without the knowledge of good and evil (Deut. 1:39). But they observe
not that where the apostle makes hearing the beginning of faith, he is only
describing the usual economy and dispensation which the Lord is wont to employ
in calling his people, and not laying down an invariable rule, for which no
other method can be substituted. Many he certainly has called and endued with
the true knowledge of himself, by internal means, by the illumination of the
Spirit, without the intervention of preaching. But since they deem it very
absurd to attribute any knowledge of God to infants, whom Moses makes void of
the knowledge ofí good and evil, let them tell me where the danger lies
if they are said now to receive some part of that grace, of which they are to
have the full measure shortly after. For if fulness of life consists in the
perfect knowledge of God, since some of those whom death hurries away in the
first moments of infancy pass into life eternal, they are certainly admitted to
behold the immediate presence of God. Those, therefore, whom the Lord is to
illumine with the full brightness of his light, why may he not, if he so
pleases, irradiate at present with some small beam, especially if he does not
remove their ignorance, before he delivers them from the prison of the flesh? I
would not rashly affirm that they are endued with the same faith which we
experience in ourselves, or have any knowledge at all resembling faith (this I
would rather leave undecided); 9 but I would somewhat curb the
stolid arrogance of those men who, as with inflated cheeks, affirm or deny
whatever suits them.

20. In order to gain a stronger footing here, they add, that baptism is a
sacrament of penitence and faith, and as neither of these is applicable to
tender infancy, we must beware of rendering its meaning empty and vain, by
admitting infants to the communion of baptism. But these darts are directed
more against God then against us; since the fact that circumcision was a sign
of repentance is completely established by many passages of Scripture (Jer.
4:4). Thus Paul terms it a seal of the righteousness of faith (Rom. 4:11). Let
God, then, be demanded why he ordered circumcision to be performed on the
bodies of infants? For baptism and circumcision being here in the same case,
they cannot give anything to the latter without conceding it to the former. If
they recur to their usual evasion, that, by the age of infancy, spiritual
infants were then figured, we have already closed this means of escape against
them. We say, then, that since God imparted circumcision, the sign of
repentance and faith, to infants, it should not seem absurd that they are now
made partakers of baptism, unless men choose to clamour against an institution
of God. But as in all his acts, so here also, enough of wisdom and
righteousness shines forth to repress the slanders of the ungodly. For although
infants, at the moment when they were circumcised, did not comprehend what the
sign meant, still they were truly circumcised for the mortification of their
corrupt and polluted natureóa mortification at which they afterwards
aspired when adults. In fine, the objection is easily disposed of by the tact,
that children are baptised for future repentance and faith. Though these are
not yet formed in them, yet the seed of both lies hid in them by the secret
operation of the Spirit. This answer at once overthrows all the objections
which are twisted against us out of the meaning of baptism; for instance, the
title by which Paul distinguishes it when he terms it the ìwashing of
regeneration and renewingî (Tit. 3:5). Hence they argue, that it is not
to be given to any but to those who are capable of such feelings. But we, on
the other hand, may object, that neither ought circumcision, which is
designated regeneration, to be conferred on any but the regenerate. In this
way, we shall condemn a divine institution. Thus, as we have already hinted,
all the arguments which tend to shake circumcision are of no force in assailing
baptism. Nor can they escape by saying, that everything which rests on the
authority of God is absolutely fixed, though there should be no reason for it,
but that this reverence is not due to pÊdobaptism, nor other similar
things which are not recommended to us by the express word of God. They always
remain caught in this dilemma. The command of God to circumcise infants was
either legitimate and exempt from cavil, or deserved reprehension. If there was
nothing incompetent or absurd in it, no absurdity can be shown in the
observance of pÊdobaptism.

21. The charge of absurdity with which they attempt to stigmatise it, we thus
dispose of. If those on whom the Lord has bestowed his election, after
receiving the sign of regeneration, depart this life before they become adults,
he, by the incomprehensible energy of his Spirit, renews them in the way which
he alone sees to be expedient. Should they reach an age when they can be
instructed in the meaning of baptism, they will thereby be animated to greater
zeal for renovation, the badge of which they will learn that they received in
earliest infancy, in order that they might aspire to it during their whole
lives. To the same effect are the two passages in which Paul teaches, that we
are buried with Christ by baptism (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12). For by this he means
not that he who is to be initiated by baptism must have previously been buried
with Christ; he simply declares the doctrine which is taught by baptism, and
that to those already baptised: so that the most senseless cannot maintain from
this passage that it ought to precede baptism. In this way, Moses and the
prophets reminded the people of the thing meant by circumcision, which however
infants received. To the same effect, Paul says to the Galatians, ìAs
many of you as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christî (Gal.
3:27). Why so? That they might thereafter live to Christ, to whom previously
they had not lived. And though, in adults, the receiving of the sign ought to
follow the understanding of its meaning, yet, as will shortly be explained, a
different rule must be followed with children. No other conclusion can be drawn
from a passage in Peter, on which they strongly found. He says, that baptism is
ìnot the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a
good conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christî (1 Pet.
3:21). From this they contend that nothing is left for pÊdobaptism, which
becomes mere empty smoke, as being altogether at variance with the meaning of
baptism. But the delusion which misleads them is, that they would always have
the thing to precede the sign in the order of time. 0 For the truth
of circumcision consisted in the same answer of a good conscience; but if the
truth must necessarily have preceded, infants would never have been circumcised
by the command of God. But he himself, showing that the answer of a good
conscience forms the truth of circumcision, and, at the same time, commanding
infants to be circumcised, plainly intimates that, in their case, circumcision
had reference to the future. Wherefore, nothing more of present effect is to be
required in pÊdobaptism, than to confirm and sanction the covenant which
the Lord has made with them. The other part of the meaning of the sacrament
will follow at the time which God himself has provided.

22. Every one must, I think, clearly perceive, that all arguments of this stamp
are mere perversions of Scripture. The other remaining arguments akin to these
we shall cursorily examine. They object, that baptism is given for the
remission of sins. When this is conceded, it strongly supports our view; for,
seeing we are born sinners, we stand in need of forgiveness and pardon from the
very womb. Moreover, since God does not preclude this age from the hope of
mercy, but rather gives assurance of it, why should we deprive it of the sign,
which is much inferior to the reality? The arrow, therefore, which they aim at
us, we throw back upon themselves. Infants receive forgiveness of sins;
therefore, they are not to be deprived of the sign. They adduce the passage
from the Ephesians, that Christ gave himself for the Church, ìthat he
might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the wordî
(Eph. 5:26). Nothing could be quoted more appropriate than this to overthrow
their error: it furnishes us with an easy proof. If, by baptism, Christ intends
to attest the ablution by which he cleanses his Church, it would seem not
equitable to deny this attestation to infants, who are justly deemed part of
the Church, seeing they are called heirs of the heavenly kingdom. For Paul
comprehends the whole Church when he says that it was cleansed by the washing
of water. In like manner, from his expression in another place, that by baptism
we are ingrafted into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 7:13), we infer, that infants,
whom he enumerates among his members, are to be baptised, in order that they
may not be dissevered from his body. See the violent onset which they make with
all their engines on the bulwarks of our faith.

23. They now come down to the custom and practice of the apostolic age,
alleging that there is no instance of any one having been admitted to baptism
without a previous profession of faith and repentance. For when Peter is asked
by his hearers, who were pricked in their heart, ìWhat shall we
do?î his advise is, ìRepent and be baptised, every one of you, in
the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sinsî (Acts 2:37, 38). In
like manner, when Philip was asked by the eunuch to baptise him, he answered,
ìIf thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.î Hence they
think they can make out that baptism cannot be lawfully given to any one
without previous faith and repentance. If we yield to this argument, the former
passage, in which there is no mention of faith, will prove that repentance
alone is sufficient, and the latter, which makes no requirement of repentance,
that there is need only of faith. They will object, I presume, that the one
passage helps the other, and that both, therefore, are to be connected. I, in
my turn, maintain that these two must be compared with other passages which
contribute somewhat to the solution of this difficulty. There are many passages
of Scripture whose meaning depends on their peculiar position. Of this we have
an example in the present instance. Those to whom these things are said by
Peter and Philip are of an age fit to aim at repentance, and receive faith. We
strenuously insist that such men are not to be baptised unless their conversion
and faith are discerned, at least in as far as human judgment can ascertain it.
But it is perfectly clear that infants must be placed in a different class. For
when any one formerly joined the religious communion of Israel, he behoved to
be taught the covenant, and instructed in the law of the Lord, before he
received circumcision, because he was of a different nation; in other words, an
alien from the people of Israel, with whom the covenant, which circumcision
sanctioned, had been made.

24. Thus the Lord, when he chose Abraham for himself, did not commence with
circumcision, in the meanwhile concealing what he meant by that sign, but first
announced that he intended to make a covenant with him, and, after his faith in
the promise, made him partaker of the sacrament. Why does the sacrament come
after faith in Abraham, and precede all intelligence in his son Isaac? It is
right that he who, in adult age, is admitted to the fellowship of a covenant by
one from whom he had hitherto been alienated, should previously learn its
conditions; but it is not so with the infant born to him. He, according to the
terms of the promise, is included in the promise by hereditary right from his
motherís womb. Or, to state the matter more briefly and more clearly, If
the children of believers, without the help of understanding, are partakers of
the covenant, there is no reason why they should be denied the sign, because
they are unable to swear to its stipulations. This undoubtedly is the reason
why the Lord sometimes declares that the children born to the Israelites are
begotten and born to him (Ezek. 16:20; 23:37). For he undoubtedly gives the
place of sons to the children of those to whose seed he has promised that he
will be a Father. But the child descended from unbelieving parents is deemed an
alien to the covenant until he is united to God by faith. Hence, it is not
strange that the sign is withheld when the thing signified would be vain and
fallacious. In that view, Paul says that the Gentiles, so long as they were
plunged in idolatry, were strangers to the covenant (Eph. 2:11). The whole
matter may, if I mistake not, be thus briefly and clearly expounded: Those who,
in adult age, embrace the faith of Christ, having hitherto been aliens from the
covenant, are not to receive the sign of baptism without previous faith and
repentance. These alone can give them access to the fellowship of the covenant,
whereas children, deriving their origin from Christians, as they are
immediately on their birth received by God as heirs of the covenant, are also
to be admitted to baptism. To this we must refer the narrative of the
Evangelist, that those who were baptised by John confessed their sins (Mt.
3:6). This example, we hold, ought to be observed in the present day. Were a
Turk to offer himself for baptism, we would not at once perform the rite
without receiving a confession which was satisfactory to the Church.

25. Another passage which they adduce is from the third chapter of John, where
our Saviourís words seem to them to imply that a present regeneration is
required in baptism, ìExcept a man be born of water, and of the Spirit,
he cannot enter into the kingdom of Godî (John 3:5). See, they say, how
baptism is termed regeneration by the lips of our Lord himself, and on what
pretext, therefore, with what consistency is baptism given to those who, it is
perfectly obvious, are not at all capable of regeneration? First, they are in
error in imagining that there is any mention of baptism in this passage, merely
because the word water is used. Nicodemus, after our Saviour had explained to
him the corruption of nature, and the necessity of being born again, kept
dreaming of a corporeal birth, and hence our Saviour intimates the mode in
which God regenerates usóviz. by water and the Spirit; in other words,
by the Spirit, who, in irrigating and cleansing the souls of believers,
operates in the manner of water. By ìwater and the Spirit,î
therefore, I simply understand the Spirit, which is water. Nor is the
expression new. It perfectly accords with that which is used in the third
chapter of Matthew, ìHe that cometh after me is mightier than I;î
ìhe shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost, and with fireî (Mt.
3:11). Therefore, as to baptise with the Holy Spirit, and with fire, is to
confer the Holy Spirit, who, in regeneration, has the office and nature of
fire, so to be born again of water, and of the Spirit, is nothing else than to
receive that power of the Spirit, which has the same effect on the soul that
water has on the body. I know that a different interpretation is given, but I
have no doubt that this is the genuine meaning, because our Saviourís
only purpose was to teach, that all who aspire to the kingdom of heaven must
lay aside their own disposition. And yet were we disposed to imitate these men
in their mode of cavilling, we might easily, after conceding what they wish,
reply to them, that baptism is prior to faith and repentance, since, in this
passage, our Saviour mentions it before the Spirit. This certainly must be
understood of spiritual gifts, and if they follow baptism, I have gained all I
contend for. But, cavilling aside, the simple interpretation to be adopted is
that which I have givenóviz. that no man, until renewed by living water,
that is, by the Spirit, can enter the kingdom of God.

26. This, moreover, plainly explodes the fiction of those who consign all the
unbaptised to eternal death.60[4]
Let us suppose, then, that, as they insist, baptism is administered to adults
only. What will they make of a youth who, after being embued duly and properly
with the rudiments of piety, while waiting for the day of baptism, is
unexpectedly carried off by sudden death? The promise of our Lord is clear,
ìHe that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath
everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from
death unto lifeî (John 5:24). We nowhere read of his having condemned him
who was not yet baptised. I would not be understood as insinuating that baptism
may be contemned with impunity. So far from excusing this contempt, I hold that
it violates the covenant of the Lord. The passage only serves to show, that we
must not deem baptism so necessary as to suppose that every one who has lost
the opportunity of obtaining it has forthwith perished. By assenting to their
fiction, we should condemn all, without exception, whom any accident may have
prevented from procuring baptism, how much soever they may have been endued
with the faith by which Christ himself is possessed. Moreover, baptism being,
as they hold, necessary to salvation, they, in denying it to infants, consign
them all to eternal death. Let them now consider what kind of agreement they
have with the words of Christ, who says, that ìof such is the kingdom of
heavenî (Mt. 19:14). And though we were to concede everything to them, in
regard to the meaning of this passage, they will extract nothing from it, until
they have previously overthrown the doctrine which we have already established
concerning the regeneration of infants.

27. But they boast of having their strongest bulwark in the very institution of
baptism, which they find in the last chapter of Matthew, where Christ, sending
his disciples into all the world, commands them to teach and then baptise.
Then, in the last chapter of Mark, it is added, ìHe that believeth, and
is baptised, shall be savedî (Mark 16:16). What more (say they) do we
ask, since the words of Christ distinctly declare, that teaching must precede
baptism, and assign to baptism the place next to faith? Of this arrangement our
Lord himself gave an example, in choosing not to be baptised till his thirtieth
year. In how many ways do they here entangle themselves, and betray their
ignorance! They err more than childishly in this, that they derive the first
institution of baptism from this passage, whereas Christ had, from the
commencement of his ministry, ordered it to be administered by the apostles.
There is no ground, therefore, for contending that the law and rule of baptism
is to be sought from these two passages. as containing the first institution.
But to indulge them in their error, how nerveless is this mode of arguing? Were
I disposed to evasion, I have not only a place of escape, but a wide field to
expatiate in. For when they cling so desperately to the order of the words,
insisting that because it is said, ìGo, preach and baptise,î and
again, ìWhosoever believes and is baptised,î they must preach
before baptising, and believe before being baptised, why may not we in our turn
object, that they must baptise before teaching the observance of those things
which Christ commanded, because it is said, ìBaptise, teaching
whatsoever I have commanded youî? The same thing we observed in the other
passage in which Christ speaks of the regeneration of water and of the Spirit.
For if we interpret as they insist, then baptism must take precedence of
spiritual regeneration, because it is first mentioned. Christ teaches that we
are to be born again, not of the Spirit and of water, but of water and of the
Spirit.

28. This unassailable argument, in which they confide so much, seems already to
be considerably shaken; but as we have sufficient protection in the simplicity
of truth, I am unwilling to evade the point by paltry subtleties. Let them,
therefore, have a solid answer. The command here given by Christ relates
principally to the preaching of the gospel: to it baptism is added as a kind of
appendage. Then he merely speaks of baptism in so far as the dispensation of it
is subordinate to the function of teaching. For Christ sends his disciples to
publish the gospel to all nations of the world, that by the doctrine of
salvation they may gather men, who were previously lost, into his kingdom. But
who or what are those men? It is certain that mention is made only of those who
are fit to receive his doctrine. He subjoins, that such, after being taught,
were to be baptised, adding the promise, Whosoever believeth and is baptised,
shall be saved. Is there one syllable about infants in the whole discourse?
What, then, is the form of argument with which they assail us? Those who are of
adult age are to be instructed and brought to the faith before being baptised,
and therefore it is unlawful to make baptism common to infants. They cannot, at
the very utmost, prove any other thing out of this passage, than that the
gospel must be preached to those who are capable of hearing it before they are
baptised; for of such only the passage speaks. From this let them, if they can,
throw an obstacle in the way of baptising infants.

29. But I will make their fallacies palpable even to the blind, by a very plain
similitude. Should any one insist that infants are to be deprived of food, on
the presence that the apostle permits none to eat but those who labour (2
Thess. 3:10), would he not deserve to be scouted by all? Why so? Because that
which was said of a certain class of men, and a certain age, he wrests and
applies to all indifferently. The dexterity of these men in the present
instance is not greater. That which every one sees to be intended for adult age
merely, they apply to infants, subjecting them to a rule which was laid down
only for those of riper years. With regard to the example of our Saviour, it
gives no countenance to their case. He was not baptised before his thirtieth
year. This is indeed true, but the reason is obvious; because he then
determined to lay the solid foundation of baptism by his preaching, or rather
to confirm the foundation which John had previously laid. Therefore, when he
was pleased with his doctrine to institute baptism, that he might give the
greater authority to his institution, he sanctified it in his own person, and
that at the most befitting time, namely, the commencement of his ministry. In
fine, they can prove nothing more than that baptism received its origin and
commencement with the preaching of the gospel. But if they are pleased to fix
upon the thirtieth year, why do they not observe it, but admit any one to
baptism according to the view which they may have formed of his proficiency?
Nay, even Servetus, one of their masters, although he pertinaciously insisted
on this period, had begun to act the prophet in his twenty-first year; as if
any man could be tolerated in arrogating to himself the office of a teacher in
the Church before he was a member of the Church.

30. At length they object, that there is not greater reason for admitting
infants to baptism than to the Lordís Supper, to which, however, they
are never admitted: as if Scripture did not in every way draw a wide
distinction between them. In the early Church indeed, the Lordís Supper
was frequently given to infants, as appears from Cyprian and Augustine (August.
ad Bonif. Lib. 1); but the practice justly became obsolete. For if we attend to
the peculiar nature of baptism, it is a kind of entrance, and as it were
initiation into the Church, by which we are ranked among the people of God, a
sign of our spiritual regeneration, by which we are again born to be children
of God; whereas, on the contrary, the Supper is intended for those of riper
years, who, having passed the tender period of infancy, are fit to bear solid
food. This distinction is very clearly pointed out in Scripture. For there, as
far as regards baptism, the Lord makes no selection of age, whereas he does not
admit all to partake of the Supper, but confines it to those who are fit to
discern the body and blood of the Lord, to examine their own conscience, to
show forth the Lordís death, and understand its power. Can we wish
anything clearer than what the apostle says, when he thus exhorts, ìLet
a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that
cupî? (1 Cor. 11:28.) Examination, therefore, must precede, and this it
were vain to expect from infants. Again, ìHe that eateth and drinketh
unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the
Lordís body.î If they cannot partake worthily without being able
duly to discern the sanctity of the Lordís body, why should we stretch
out poison to our young children instead of vivifying food? Then what is our
Lordís injunction? ìDo this in remembrance of me.î And what
the inference which the apostle draws from this? ìAs often as ye eat
this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lordís death till he
come.î How, pray, can we require infants to commemorate any event of
which they have no understanding; how require them ìto show forth the
Lordís death,î of the nature and benefit of which they have no
idea? Nothing of the kind is prescribed by baptism. Wherefore, there is the
greatest difference between the two signs. This also we observe in similar
signs under the old dispensation. Circumcision, which, as is well known,
corresponds to our baptism, was intended for infants, but the passover, for
which the Supper is substituted, did not admit all kinds of guests
promiscuously, but was duly eaten only by those who were of an age sufficient
to ask the meaning of it (Exod. 12:26). Had these men the least particle of
soundness in their brain, would they be thus blind as to a matter so very clear
and obvious?

31. Though I am unwilling to annoy the reader with the series of conceits which
Servetus, not the least among the Anabaptists, nay, the great honour of this
crew, when girding himself for battle, deemed, when he adduced them, to be
specious arguments, it will be worth while briefly to dispose of
them.60[5] He pretends that as the
symbols of Christ are perfect, they require persons who are perfect, or at
least capable of perfection. But the answer is plain. The perfection of
baptism, which extends even to death, is improperly restricted to one moment of
time; moreover, perfection, in which baptism invites us to make continual
progress during life, is foolishly exacted by him all at once. He objects, that
the symbols of Christ were appointed for remembrance, that every one may
remember that he was buried together with Christ. I answer, that what he coined
out of his own brain does not need refutation, nay, that which he transfers to
baptism properly belongs to the Supper, as appears from Paulís words,
ìLet a man examine himself,î words similar to which are nowhere
used with reference to baptism. Whence we infer, that those who from nonage are
incapable of examination are duly baptised. His third point is, That all who
believe not in the Son remain in death, the wrath of God abideth on them (John
3:36); and, therefore, infants who are unable to believe lie under
condemnation. I answer, that Christ does not there speak of the general guilt
in which all the posterity of Adam are involved, but only threatens the
despisers of the gospel, who proudly and contumaciously spurn the grace which
is offered to them. But this has nothing to do with infants. At the same time,
I meet him with the opposite argument. Every one whom Christ blesses is
exempted from the curse of Adam, and the wrath of God. Therefore, seeing it is
certain that infants are blessed by him, it follows that they are freed from
death. He nexts falsely quotes a passage which is nowhere found, Whosoever is
born of the Spirit, hears the voice of the Spirit. Though we should grant that
such a passage occurs in Scripture, all he can extract from it is, that
believers, according as the Spirit works in them, are framed to obedience. But
that which is said of a certain number, it is illogical to apply to all alike.
His fourth objection is, As that which precedes is animal (1 Cor. 15:46), we
must wait the full time for baptism, which is spiritual. But while I admit that
all the posterity of Adam, born of the flesh, bear their condemnation with them
from the womb, I hold that this is no obstacle to the immediate application of
the divine remedy. Servetus cannot show that by divine appointment, several
years must elapse before the new spiritual life begins. Paulís testimony
is, that though lost by nature, the children of believers are holy by
supernatural grace. He afterwards brings forward the allegory that David, when
going up into mount Zion, took with him neither the blind nor the lame, but
vigorous soldiers (2 Sam. 5:8). But what if I meet this with the parable in
which God invites to the heavenly feast the lame and the blind? In what way
will Servetus disentangle this knot? I ask, moreover, whether the lame and the
maimed had not previously served with David? But it is superfluous to dwell
longer on this argument, which, as the reader will learn from the sacred
history, is founded on mere misquotation. He adds another allegoryó viz.
that the apostles were fishers of men, not of children. I ask, then, What does
our Saviour mean when he says that in the net are caught all kinds of fishes?
(Mt. 9:19; 13:47.) But as I have no pleasure in sporting with allegory, I
answer, that when the office of teaching was committed to the apostles, they
were not prohibited from baptising infants. Moreover, I should like to know
why, when the Evangelist uses the term ajnqrwvpou" (which comprehends the whole
human race without exception), he denies that infants are included. His seventh
argument is, Since spiritual things accord with spiritual (1 Cor 2:13),
infants, not being spiritual, are unfit for baptism. It is plain how perversely
he wrests this passage of Paul. It relates to doctrine. The Corinthians,
pluming themselves excessively on a vain acuteness, Paul rebukes their folly,
because they still require to be imbued with the first rudiments of heavenly
doctrine. Who can infer from this that baptism is to be denied to infants,
whom, when begotten of the flesh, the Lord consecrates to himself by gratuitous
adoption? His objection, that if they are new men, they must be fed with
spiritual food, is easily obviated. By baptism they are admitted into the fold
of Christ, and the symbol of adoption is sufficient for them, until they grow
up and become fit to bear solid food. We must, therefore, wait for the time of
examination, which God distinctly demands in the sacred Supper. His next
objection is, that Christ invites all his people to the sacred Supper. But as
it is plain that he admits those only who are prepared to celebrate the
commemoration of his death, it follows that infants, whom he honoured with his
embrace, remain in a distinct and peculiar position until they grow up, and yet
are not aliens. When he objects, that it is strange why the infant does not
partake of the Supper, I answer, that souls are fed by other food than the
external eating of the Supper, and that accordingly Christ is the food of
infants, though they partake not of the symbol. The case is different with
baptism, by which the door of the Church is thrown open to them. He again
objects, that a good householder distributes meat to his household in due
season (Mt. 24:45). This I willingly admit; but how will he define the time of
baptism, so as to prove that it is not seasonably given to infants? He,
moreover, adduces Christís command to the apostles to make haste,
because the fields are already white to the harvest (John 4:35). Our Saviour
only means that the apostles, seeing the present fruit of their labour, should
bestir themselves with more alacrity to teach. Who will infer from this, that
harvest only is the fit time for baptism? His eleventh argument is, That in the
primitive Church, Christians and disciples were the same; but we have already
seen that he argues unskilfully from the part to the whole. The name of
disciples is given to men of full age, who had already been taught, and had
assumed the name of Christ, just as the Jews behoved to be disciples under the
law of Moses. Still none could rightly infer from this that infants, whom the
Lord declared to be of his household, were strangers. Moreover, he alleges that
all Christians are brethren, and that infants cannot belong to this class, so
long as we exclude them from the Supper. But I return to my position, first,
that none are heirs of the kingdom of heaven but those who are the members of
Christ; and, secondly, that the embracing of Christ was the true badge of
adoption, in which infants are joined in common with adults, and that temporary
abstinence from the Supper does not prevent them from belonging to the body of
the Church. The thief on the cross, when converted, became the brother of
believers, though he never partook of the Lordís Supper. Servetus
afterwards adds, that no man becomes our brother unless by the Spirit of
adoption, who is only conferred by the hearing of faith. I answer, that he
always falls back into the same paralogism, because he preposterously applies
to infants what is said only of adults. Paul there teaches that the ordinary
way in which God calls his elect, and brings them to the faith, is by raising
up faithful teachers, and thus stretching out his hand to them by their
ministry and labours. Who will presume from this to give the law to God, and
say that he may not ingraft infants into Christ by some other secret method? He
objects, that Cornelius was baptised after receiving the Holy Spirit; but how
absurdly he would convert a single example into a general rule, is apparent
from the case of the Eunuch and the Samaritans, in regard to whom the Lord
observed a different order, baptism preceding the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The
fifteenth argument is more than absurd. He says that we become gods by
regeneration, but that they are gods to whom the word of God is sent (John
10:35; 2 Pet. 1:4), a thing not possible to infant children. The attributing of
deity to believers is one of his ravings, which this is not the proper place to
discuss; but it betrays the utmost effrontery to wrest the passage in the psalm
(Ps. 82:6) to a meaning so alien to it. Christ says, that kings and magistrates
are called gods by the prophet, because they perform an office divinely
appointed them. This dexterous interpreter transfers what is addressed by
special command to certain individuals to the doctrine of the Gospel, so as to
exterminate infants from the Church. Again, he objects, that infants cannot be
regarded as new men, because they are not begotten by the word. But what I have
said again and again I now repeat, that, for regenerating us, doctrine is an
incorruptible seed, if indeed we are fit to perceive it; but when, from nonage,
we are incapable of being taught, God takes his own methods of regenerating. He
afterwards returns to his allegories, and says, that under the law, the sheep
and the goat were not offered in sacrifice the moment they were dropt (Exod.
12:5). Were I disposed to deal in figures, I might obviously reply, first, that
all the first-born, on opening the matrix, were sacred to the Lord (Exod.
13:12); and, secondly, that a lamb of a year old was to be sacrificed: whence
it follows, that it was not necessary to wait for mature age, the young and
tender offspring having been selected by God for sacrifice. He contends,
moreover, that none could come to Christ but those who were previously prepared
by John; as if Johnís ministry had not been temporary. But, to omit
this, assuredly there was no such preparation in the children whom Christ took
up in his arms and blessed. Wherefore, let us have done with his false
principle. He at length calls in the assistance of Trismegistus and the Sybils,
to prove that sacred ablutions are fit only for adults. See how honourably he
thinks of Christian baptism, when he tests it by the profane rites of the
Gentiles, and will not have it administered except in the way pleasing to
Trismegistus. We defer more to the authority of God, who has seen it meet to
consecrate infants to himself, and initiate them by a sacred symbol, the
significancy of which they are unable from nonage to understand. We do not
think it lawful to borrow from the expiations of the Gentiles, in order to
change, in our baptism, that eternal and inviolable law which God enacted in
circumcision. His last argument is, If infants, without understanding, may be
baptised, baptism may be mimicked and jestingly administered by boys in sport.
Here let him plead the matter with God, by whose command circumcision was
common to infants before they received understanding. Was it, then, a fit
matter for ridicule or boyish sport, to overthrow the sacred institution of
God? But no wonder that these reprobate spirits, as if they were under the
influence of frenzy, introduce the grossest absurdities in defence of their
errors, because God, by this spirit of giddiness, justly avenges their pride
and obstinacy. I trust I have made it apparent how feebly Servetus has
supported his friends the Anabaptists.

32. No sound man, I presume, can now doubt how rashly the Church is disturbed
by those who excite quarrels and disturbances because of pÊdobaptism. For
it is of importance to observe what Satan means by all this craftóviz.
to rob us of the singular blessing of confidence and spiritual joy, which is
hence to be derived, and in so far to detract from the glory of the divine
goodness. For how sweet is it to pious minds to be assured not only by word,
but even by ocular demonstration, that they are so much in favour with their
heavenly Father, that he interests himself in their prosperity! Here we may see
how he acts towards us as a most provident parent, not ceasing to care for us
even after our death, but consulting and providing for our children. Ought not
our whole heart to be stirred up within us, as Davidís was (Ps. 48:11),
to bless his name for such a manifestation of goodness? Doubtless the design of
Satan in assaulting pÊdobaptism with all his forces is to keep out of
view, and gradually efface, that attestation of divine grace which the promise
itself presents to our eyes. In this way, not on]y would men be impiously
ungrateful for the mercy of God, but be less careful in training their children
to piety. For it is no slight stimulus to us to bring them up in the fear of
God, and the observance of his law, when we reflect, that from their birth they
have been considered and acknowledged by him as his children. Wherefore, if we
would not maliciously obscure the kindness of God, let us present to him our
infants, to whom he has assigned a place among his friends and family, that is,
the members of the Church.

[6]03 603 The French from the
beginning of the chapter is as follows:óìOr díautant que
nous voyons líobservation que nous tenons de baptiser les petits enfans
etre impugnÈe et debatue par aucuns esprits malins, comme si elle
níavoit point etÈ institutÈe de Dieu mais inventÈe
nouvellement des hommes, ou pour le moins quelques annÈes apres le tems
des Apostres, jíestime quíil viendra bien [yacute] propos, de
confermer en cest endroit les consciences imbecilles, et refuter les objections
mensonges qui pouroient faire teis seducteurs, pour renverser le veritÈ
de Dieu aux cúur des simples, qui ne seraient pas exercitÈs pour
repondre a leur cauteles et cavillations.îóNow, inasmuch as we see
that the practice which we have of baptising little children is impugned and
assailed by some malignant spirits, as if it had not been appointed by God, but
newly invented by men, or at least some years after the days of the Apostles, I
think it will be very seasonable to confirm weak consciences in this matter,
and refute the lying objections which such seducers might make, in order to
overthrow the truth of God in the hearts of the simple, who might not be
skilled in answering their cavils and objections.

D127 D127 The ìanalogy of faith,î to which we are to
ìbring every interpretation of Scripture,î refers to the ultimate
rule or standard of interpretation, the final test of all doctrine; namely, the
teaching of Scripture as a whole. Analogy suggests comparison; thus we are to
compare a proposed interpretation of a specific portion of Scripture with the
interpretation which Scripture as a whole; either explicitly or generally,
gives to itself. Analogy suggests proportion or measure; thus we are to
ascertain the intention and importance of a single text of Scripture in
proportion to its place and distribution in the whole body of revealed truth.
Analogy also suggests relationship; thus we are to study the particular
doctrines of Scriptures in relation to the system of doctrine revealed
therein.

D128 D128 This strong assertion must be seen in its relationship to
the question of the salvation of elect infants dying in infancy. If they are to
have remission of sins, a new nature, and the blessing of eternal life, it is
clear that they must be regenerated.

D129 D129 It is instructive to take not of Calvinís careful
restraint and sense of proportion in the previous few sentences. With respect
to the question of the manner in which elect infants dying in infancy are
saved, Calvin, while presupposing their need and the Spiritís supply of
regeneration (see note on section 18), makes no definite assertion concerning
the presence or absence of faith in them. This position of indecision (as
Calvin terms it) is commendable, precisely because it does not presume beyond
the teaching of Scripture.

D130 D130 In connection with the sacraments, there are three aspects
which must be carefully distinguished: 1. the spiritual reality which is
signified (what Calvin calls ìthe thingî) 2. the external
sacrament itself (what Calvin calls ìthe signî) 3. our
understanding of the spiritual significance of the sacrament (as mediated to us
by the Word and Spirit). Calvin has called our attention to the very important
fact that a particular time order of these aspects is not crucial to the proper
use of the sacraments. He asserts that the spiritual reality itself (e.g.,
regeneration) may either precede or follow the external sacrament (i.e., 1 may
precede 2, or 2 may precede 1). The order then, of the three aspects enumerated
above could be 1, 2, 3, or 1, 3, 2, or 2, 1, 3. (The reason why the order could
not be 2, 3, 1, or 3, 1, 2, or 3, 2, 1, is that, because of that depravity
which fills our minds with ignorance and spiritual darkness, our understanding
of the sacramentís spiritual significance [3] must always follow the
spiritual reality which is signified [1]). Calvinís specific interest in
this section is, of course, to point out that the third possible order (2, 1,
3) is a live option. That is, the time order (in addition to the other possible
orders) could be as follows: 2. the external sacrament itself (e.g., baptism)
1. the spiritual reality which is signified (e.g., regeneration) 3. our
understanding of the spiritual significance of the sacrament. And the time
lapse between number 2 and numbers 1 and 3 could amount to an indefinite number
of years, just as it ordinarily did in the case of circumcised infants in Old
Testament times.